I am thinking of just getting this lens;
Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G IF-ED
till I manage to get my hands on the 18-200mm one ive ordered. Would that be a silly move? It's 300 pounds. I am not going anywhere at the moment so don't really need the lens and the weather is crap so wont be shooting at the mo either, but another lense to do a better job of the 18 to 70 region perhaps? Let me know what you think.
-greg

Greg, from my point of view, there are two or three better alternatives:
- Buy the Nikkor Micro 105mm VR. You definitively need it if you are into macro shots, plus it has a fantastic quality as a tele-lens.
- Buy the Sigma 10-20mm if you love extra-wide-angle photography
- Get the 80-400VR if you are more into super long tele-shots

Hi Greg, the 18-70mm is a great general purpose zoom, but it will become redundant the instant your 18-200mm arrives. Honestly, you'd rarely if ever use it from that point on.

So infurating as it is not having a general purpose range quite yet, I'd either hold back, or go with Thomas's suggestion and buy a second lens which will complement the 18-200mm. So either something wider, or longer or perhaps something specialist.

Hang on, that's exactly what Thomas said!

I guess what I really wanted to say was don't buy the 18-70 or any other general purpose zoom if you have an 18-200mm arriving soon, as you're unlikely to use it again once the 18-200 arrives.

Hi Greg, there may be some performance differences between those two lenses, but I don't think you'll have many complaints with the 18-200mm. The convenience of having the 18-200 range on a single lens will outweigh any performance issues for all but the most exacting photograpehrs. That said, if you are that kind of photographer, you might wish to use two seperate lenses with shorter zoom ratios.

To be honest though I think you'll be very pleased with the 18-200mm.

I haven't directly compared the 18-200mm against the 18-70mm, but I do have results for each lens, so you may wish to open two windows with each of their reviews and compare some of the optical results.

Hi Greg,
didn't quite get your last comment.
At the "long end" (135mm upward) plus or minus 16-35mm is not such a big deal.
But at the short end (below 24mm) every millimeter starts counting. So there is definitely room for a 10-20mm lens below a 18-70/18-135/18-200mm lens. The major question beeing: Do you love extrem wide-angle shots?

Havent really had any experience with wide angle shooting yet. I don't tend to get up close and personal when I shoot, and am not in the most architechtural area, so I suppose I wouldn;t get a huge amount of use from a wide angle lense

If you more love to take pics from a distance the Nikkor 80-400VR should be an interesting second (or first, whatever comes first) lens for you.
It's stabilized, so you have a better chance to get away with decent shots even without a tripod...

Can someone tell me what the equivelent lens would be of my manual focus 70-210mm minolta lens on a auto focus lens?? Will the 18-200mm VR nikon lens give greater or less magnification with the D80, than the 70-210 with the film camera?

And the Nikkor 80-400VR will be equivalent to a 120-600mm (!) on your old Minolta. That makes it pretty clear, why the VR anti-shake is invaluable in using such a lens under less than optimal conditions...

Greg, dont get me wrong: You cannot use the Nikkor 80-400 on the old Minolta. I was just saying that with the 80-400mm VR Nikkor on your new D80 you can take pictures equivalent of some 120-600mm super telefoto zoomlens on the old Minolta...